Sujeet Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary reason for this decision was the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, which the petitioner failed to avail diligently within the prescribed time limits. The Court emphasized that the law favors diligent individuals and not those who are indolent. The petitioner's appeal was filed significantly beyond the statutory period stipulated under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for filing within three months and a further one month for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which provided an opportunity for restoration of cancelled registrations. The petitioner also did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice, the correctness of the alleged non-filing of returns, or that no reply was filed to the show-cause notice. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for diligent prosecution of alternative remedies, especially when the petitioner has been indolent and has not availed available schemes or statutory procedures.

Facts

The petitioner, Sujeet Kumar, proprietor of Maharaja Line Hotel and Family Restaurant, is challenging the cancellation of his GST registration, an order passed on March 3, 2023. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order with significant delay. The statutory appeal period under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allowed for filing within three months, with an additional one-month period for delay condonation. The order was dated March 3, 2023, meaning the appeal should have been filed by July 19, 2023, and a condonation application by August 19, 2023. However, the appeal was filed only on July 2, 2024. The petitioner also did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations for dealers who paid dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or the alleged defect of non-filing of returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain an appeal filed beyond the statutory limitation period, given the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner implicitly seeks the High Court's intervention due to the delay in filing the appeal. No specific argument is recorded in the judgment regarding the petitioner's contention for invoking writ jurisdiction despite the delay. Respondent's Argument: The respondents, implicitly through the Court's reasoning, would argue that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked as there is an efficacious alternative remedy available, and the petitioner has failed to diligently pursue it within the prescribed time limits. The law favors diligent litigants. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of his GST registration despite not availing the Amnesty Scheme offered by the Government through Circular No. 3 of 2023, and despite not filing a reply to the show-cause notice leading to the cancellation order. Petitioner's Argument: No specific argument is recorded in the judgment regarding the petitioner's contention for restoration despite not availing the Amnesty Scheme or responding to the show-cause notice. Respondent's Argument: The respondents would rely on the fact that the petitioner did not avail the Amnesty Scheme and did not file a reply to the show-cause notice, which are grounds for dismissal of the writ petition.